Russia Warns Trump Not To Start A Fight With North Korea

And you feel Russia might make that move? If so, it's a ridiculous idea. Putin is more aware than Kim Jong Un.

 

I agree that Russia is not an economic superpower. It is however a military superpower.

After the wall fell Russia realized it could not match the US plane for plane.. ship for ship. What they did was focus on niche technologies such as missiles. For the price of one aircraft carrier one can build a whole lot of missiles.

Russia's anti ship missile technology is the best in the world ... by far. Missiles for which we currently have no defense.

That said ... who needs much of a military when you have nukes ? Our current military spend is idiocy. It is hurting our long term security ... and Russia knows this.

On the economic front .. while we are messing around trying to play world police and creating Jihadist wonderlands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria ... pissing off many nations including some of our allies ... Russia is doing deals with the China and India ... combined population of 2.6 Billion. China's economy is on track to outpace the US economy by 2030.

We are making really stupid moves on the geopolitical chessboard.

 

Where did you get that idea ? Of course Russia is not thinking about any such move. They are not ignorant of the concept of MAD ... mutually assured destruction .. and neither is Kim.

 

Perhaps Russia should warn the stupid fat kid in NK not to start a fight with US! Because that's the reality of what is happening.

I feel sorry for his people. But the reality is as long as they're not pointing nuclear weapons at us, I really don't care.

 

That's an interesting take. They certainly wouldn't want to bear the expense of 'nation building' re NK. But personally I don't think this punk is 'out of control', and he's just Peking's proxy, ordered to test U.S. and world reactions; both Russia and Peking do this constantly as a standard policy, and they want to see what the new guy will do. They knew early on Obama was an anti-American pol, appointed Hillary as an SOS, easily bribed and also no American patriot, and they could do pretty much anything they wanted on his watch..

 

On the other hand, with their domestic economy already near total crap, they have relatively far less to lose than the big 'global' corporations do, and they probably figure we will blink first. they're pretty confident we won't go nuke on anybody, because we don't have to to win.

 

Europe is more vulnerable to Russian missiles that the US but would Russia really got that route? They would be destroyed rather quickly as well.

There is a lot of waste, certainly, but that doesn't mean the ability to strike anywhere in the world isn't there. Each time the US has become involved in any of these skirmishes the predictions of US failures have been quick to come but militarily they have no equal. US weakness is it's politicians on the left who seem to be against any war just after they were for them. That weakens resolves and results in situations like Iraq.

Relations with India are fine, as evidenced by Trump's recent meeting with Modi. Of course they have dealings with Russia also but nothing out of the ordinary. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-ties-with-us-israel/articleshow/59859409.cms

I disagree. There was a mess, for sure, especially in the Middle East and with North Korea, but I suspect international leaders are doing a great deal of backroom trading while still keeping face and creating a show of strength for their people back home. There's a lot of anti Americanism going on, even or especially in the US, but no one anywhere really wants Russia, China or any other nation to be 'The World's Policeman'. They'll grumble and complain but quietly accept that it's in everyone's interests that the US be the only real leader.[/QUOTE]

 

I agree, which is why the curiosity at your statement, "Any power that is able to wipe the US off the fact of the map is a Military Superpower".
Not as certain about Kim.

 

Of course Europe is more vulnerable, especially given Russia has backed out of the short range missile treaty and started making nuclear cruise missiles - a move we forced them to make to counter missile defense - put in place after Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002.

That said. I do not think most folks realize the reality of nuclear war with Russia. One Sub - 16 missiles (10 mirv/missile) = 160 missiles with a payload 5-7 times Hiroshima. Wipe 160 US cities off the map with populations of 500K or more and tell me what you are left with. .. That is one sub.

The ICBM's ? Hiroshima was roughly 12,000 tons TNT equivalent. At one point the Russians were making 20 megaton ICBMs = roughly 1500 times the payload of Hiroshima. The do not make these anymore because there is just no point. Both Russia and the US have reduced their stockpiles as there is just no point in being able to destroy the world 6 times .. Once is enough. Also 1-5 megatons are a far more efficient way to do things.

The Bikini Island test contaminated over 7000 sq miles with radioactive fallout. Divide by US continental land mass and you get roughly 450 ICBMs to turn the US in to a contaminated (no go red zone) on the map. Most would not die from the blast. They would die of radiation poisoning and due to lack of food and uncontaminated water.

Russia keeps around 7000 nukes. This is down from 50,000 at the peak of the cold war. They did not lower this number to make themselves vulnerable to the US. They did it because there is just no point.

It is not so much about waste. It is about dumb policy and living outside of reality. An aircraft carrier is a floating metal deathtrap against Russian Missile technology (which is now in the hands of China and India and in fact they work on this stuff together)

Who is it that we are wanting to attack ? If you take out the superpowers what is left and how much do we need to project power. This is not about "predicting failure" .. what non nuclear nation (because we can't fight those guys - sans N.K. and even this is sketchy) comes close to the US in terms of conventional firepower ? We could beat them with 1 hundredth of our military. Why the frick then do we have so much. There is simply no point.

We are armed up like we are going to have some major conventional battle with Russia ... and that is not happening.

There should not be any one country that is the "world Policeman" and us doing so will lead us to ruin (I will do a new post for this).

The fact of the matter is that we have been supporting and arming Al Qaeda and ISIS to fight against people whose crime is wanting to keep individual liberty. How is this a proper use of force ?

 

The real "anti-americanism" comes from those who want to bring our country to economic ruin by maintaining a 1 Trillion/year annual military spend to feed the Oligarchs who run this nation. The same Oligarchs who are part of the health care Oligopoly and who own Energy and Food oligopolies and our media.

Was Eisenhower "anti American" when he warned about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell speech ? We are living in the exact situation he warned against.

We are fighting against a historical imperative. The Roman, Spanish and British empires all went down for the same reason (trying to police the world/ project power). The rule of history is that technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. Things are good on the way up.

Then technology spreads. The rule of history is that the cost of projecting power increases with time to the point of bankruptcy.

For example: The Brit's had the gatling gun. With one gunship they could pretty much take over an entire African nation - fighting back with sticks and stones. Technology spreads .. eventually the African nation gets the gattling gun (think of storming a hill during WW2 with machine gun turrets).

Now you one ship is not enough. You have to send an entire armada and you are going to take heavy casualties - and this is expensive. The cost of projecting power has increased.

We are living in the same reality. Attacking pissant Iraq - a country that had been decimated by the first war 10 years prior and had an arms embargo ever since. Iraq was fighting back with dilapidated 1960's technology and his people did not want to fight. Our troops walked through Baghdad streets unimpeded. No IUDs no ambushes ... we walked right in after a few skirmishes with the Republican guard.

Yet ... this, along with Afghanistan nearly broke the bank. The cost of projecting power is ridiculously expensive and gets more expensive every day. What is worse is that our return on investment is negative in some cases.

Total Military Spending was roughly 300 Billion in 2000. Were we some kind of weakling in 2000 ?

Under 8 years of Bush this spend went over 900 Billion and under Obama eclipsed 1 Trillion. Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (increasing with inflation) we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Instead we through this money down the toilet to feed the hungry Oligarchs.

Right now we pay 450 Billion/year in interest payments on our debt (fed to the Oligarchs - international financiers who own the banks and borrow us the money) x 16 years and this is another 7 Trillion.

There were 5000 killed in Iraq but tens of thousands wounded (physically and psychologically). The cost of the VA has skyrocketed. While we still maintain the 1 Trillion total spend.. Defense spending has decreased over the last couple of years due to the increasing VA piece of the pie.

And what did we gain ? Iraq was no threat to the homeland prior to the war. We controlled Iraq's airspace an there were weapons inspectors running around the nation.

Iraq was a "secular" Muslim nation. Bin Laden and Saddam were blood enemies on this basis. Al Qaeda did not have much of a presence in Iraq.

Removing Saddam and destroying the country turned Iraq in to a Jihadist wonderland. What did we gain ? More terrorists and other people that hate us.

 

Not to mention China alone....

I think people need to start thinking about a full scale modern war would look like.

Oh trust me I agree, I would much rather watch us pull out of a lot of these crap holes and watch them tear each other apart on the news.

We go in, after we hear all the Liberal countries say we are evil if we dont, being we have the power to. Then, when we go in, we are the evil guys.

I personally would rather watch the bombing and everything on the news while we focus on the US. Being the world polics has not been a good thing for us, our innovation and wealth are what is going to control the world in the future, not our military

 

Those among others. Why anyone would want the world's most powerful democracy to fail, without offering an alternative, is a mystery.

That's only a small part of it. Steve Hilton has an interesting show but in a very bad time slot. It should be watched and discussed more. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5564011962001/?playlist_id=5452746184001#sp=show-clips

Don't think it was 'policing' they were doing, especially not the Spanish. The Communists, and now the Muslims, wanted control as well but policing never entered their little minds.

The USA has been destroying itself internally since the 1960's with little outside help, apart from anti US propaganda.

Removing the troops in December, 2011 was the worst strategic error since Vietnam and a catastrophe for everyone..

 

No we will never go to war with Russia. Never. Putins too smart. I trust him actually to never start a nuclear war. He is a responsible actor. So since he would never do that.. We will never be at war. No 3 countries on the planet combined can match the US conventionaly. Geography, Naval, and air power all deciding factors and we own all 3.

So thank goodness Putin is smart. A small little devil on my shoulder kinda wishes we'd Withdraw from NATO and watch Russia invade/assimilate Ukraine in a week. Just to see Merkels face.

 

what is Russia doing to get NK to stop developing nuclear ICBMs?

nothing at all

 

Totally nothing. They just don't have the influence. China on other hand.. They are running some pretty serious drills on that border w NK. Shooting down missiles and what not.

 

I continue my rant in Post 85. What I found very disturbing about our middle eastern foreign policy of late is that we were arming and supporting Al Qaeda and the Islamist Jihadists who later formed ISIS.

What is even more disturbing was the MSM cover up. Freaky and scary.

 

This was not Trumps policy. This happened under Obama. What Trump did do however is somewhat continue down the same path by cuddling up to El Saud.

 

I just do not see that as a conspiracy.

There are simply far too many violent groups over there to keep track of, a friend one minute is an enemy the next minute like AQ in Afghanistan.

I say continue to sell them all the weapons and let them handle their own wars.

 

We are on the same page mostly. By "policing" I meant projecting power - they are pretty much one in the same. We know what happens at the end of that road.

The job of the military is no longer defending the homeland. The Oligarchs need an enemy to continue sodomizing the "lower classes" .. something to justify the massive military spend and massive debt. The "fear factor - fear of an external threat" also helps take away individual rights and freedoms ... another age old historical trick - Let me know if you want me to expound on that one.

The surge did help to knock the heck out of Al Qaeda but, all we were doing is cleaning up the mess that we made. There was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the war. Saddam was no fan of Islamist's.

What is nonsense is the claim that us leaving had something to do with the rise of ISIS in Syria. Syria (not Iraq) being the operative word.

The rise of ISIS in Syria was caused by major nation states (Saud, Qatar, the US and others) arming the heck out of the Islamist rebel opposition (which was essentially Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and the Islamist's that later formed ISIS).

While arming the likes of Al Qaeda to fight a proxy war is disturbing, the MSM cover up is even more disturbing. It is freaky and scary.

 

Then you have not researched the issue or listened to the numerous Senators and those in Congress who have spoken out against the policy. The MSM response was silence.

Obama's "moderate rebel lie" was just that .. a completely false narrative. The NYT had some good reporting in the beginning years of the battle but .. this was conveniently forgotten.

Biden screwed up one time during questions after a speech at Harvard and stated "there are no moderate rebels" .. and there were not. Any support to the rebel opposition was support for Al Qaeda and ISIS which were the main groups.

This was clear as early as 2012 - shortly after the insurgency started in late 2011.

Biden went on to explain how Saud was pouring millions into Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. MSM ? "Silence" Is the fact that we were supporting Al Qaeda in a proxy war not news ? Give your head a shake.

If you want the goods ... I have them.

 

No, I'm afraid it's more a case of 'when you go in you **** everything up'? As the most recent example of it, think 'Afghanistan'?

 

Nope, definitely not it at all I know it is trendy to point at the few examples you hate and ignore the millions of lives that have been saved

 

So Afghanistan has been a successful operation in your opinion then? Come on, face up to it - it has been, and still is, an unmitigated disaster.

 

Russia is doing a lot to get N. Korea to heel, as well as to bring them closer to their brethren in the South, but it's not the methods that Washington likes to use. Putin is close to S. Korea and President Moon was his honored guest at the economic summit at Vladisvostok this week.

Among the other projects with S. Korea, they spoke about connecting the Russian railway system with the South through N. Korea, as well as passing a gas pipeline through N. Korea.

Right afterwards, a delegation from N. Korea met with Vladimir Putin and he is considering trade between them that will fall within the UN guide lines.